4 ms·

> Every country has different rights for citizens and non-citizens. The rights are inherent in the nature of the situation (i.e., humans living in a social ord

> Every country has different rights for citizens and non-citizens. The rights are inherent in the nature of the situation (i.e., humans living in a social order based on equality of individuals under the law). The scope of the protection of those rights varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction (and vanishes entirely where jurisprudence is slave to political demagoguery). The fourth Amendment isn't the source of the right, it guarantees that the right won't be abridged by government action. As the Constitution is defined by and for the people of the United States, that the protections "guaranteed" (in quotes because the guarantee has to be maintained by vigilance) don't extend to those who are not the people of the United States isn't logically surprising, but can remain somewhat disappointing (politically and ethically).

DannyBee 13y ago
Your assertion is essentially that all of these rights are natural rights. This is, as I said, an interesting claim. I'll point out the irony that the freedoms everyone considers so important didn't even make it in the original document, only the addendum :)
- sageikosa 13y ago
  What I am stating is that "rights" are a necessity of creatures like human beings living in societies based on equality under the law. You can have national (and sub-national) jurisdictions that do not honor certain rights, but that doesn't make the concept of rights relative, it makes the ability to judge the jurisdictions by the protections they guarantee, and thus whether they are actually based on equality under the law. They may be deemed "natural rights" by the nature of mankind living in what I will term "just" societies (where jurisprudence and justice coincide), but they are not "natural" in their springing forth from the natural sciences of physics, chemistry and biology. There were a number of people involved in the Constitution of the US of A who did not want to enumerate the rights, knowing that they were not the government's to give and receive. The pragmatic reality of the day was a yield to legal codification, since most knew that a government not explicitly bound, was bound to implicitly violate those rights. The escape clauses were (probably, I'll let others debate that) the 9th and 10th amendments.
- nijk 13y ago
  http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights The Bill of Rights was explicitly presented as a statement to secure natural rights, and at least one founder (George Mason) explicitly boycotted the Constitution over the non-incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the main document. One could even argue (though it would be a stretch) that the constitution articles are technical details, and the book of rights is separate because it intended to document the natural rights that should go without saying (but government not trusted to do so forever), separate from the procedural technicalities of the main text. Now you are the one with "interesting" ideas.

DannyBee 13y ago

Your assertion is essentially that all of these rights are natural rights. This is, as I said, an interesting claim. I'll point out the irony that the freedoms everyone considers so important didn't even make it in the original document, only the addendum :)

sageikosa 13y ago
What I am stating is that "rights" are a necessity of creatures like human beings living in societies based on equality under the law. You can have national (and sub-national) jurisdictions that do not honor certain rights, but that doesn't make the concept of rights relative, it makes the ability to judge the jurisdictions by the protections they guarantee, and thus whether they are actually based on equality under the law. They may be deemed "natural rights" by the nature of mankind living in what I will term "just" societies (where jurisprudence and justice coincide), but they are not "natural" in their springing forth from the natural sciences of physics, chemistry and biology. There were a number of people involved in the Constitution of the US of A who did not want to enumerate the rights, knowing that they were not the government's to give and receive. The pragmatic reality of the day was a yield to legal codification, since most knew that a government not explicitly bound, was bound to implicitly violate those rights. The escape clauses were (probably, I'll let others debate that) the 9th and 10th amendments.
nijk 13y ago
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights The Bill of Rights was explicitly presented as a statement to secure natural rights, and at least one founder (George Mason) explicitly boycotted the Constitution over the non-incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the main document. One could even argue (though it would be a stretch) that the constitution articles are technical details, and the book of rights is separate because it intended to document the natural rights that should go without saying (but government not trusted to do so forever), separate from the procedural technicalities of the main text. Now you are the one with "interesting" ideas.